Sri Chandrashekhar S/o Late T.Lakshman V. The Assessing Officer JCIT (OSD)- Cent Cir 1(3) Blr and Tax Recovery Officer

WP/18413/2021

AI Insights

In this case, the petitioner, Sri Chandrashekhar, challenged the legality of several notices and an order issued by the Income Tax Department, claiming they were erroneous and without jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that these actions were illegal and arbitrary, referencing several circulars from the Central Board of Direct Taxes that supported his position. The respondents contended that the stay applications filed by the petitioner were still pending and thus did not warrant any relief at this stage. The court, however, found that proceeding with the notices and orders while the stay applications were pending was inappropriate, leading to the quashing of the impugned actions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 798893 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K V ARAVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHESH CHOWDHARY
• Keywords: Illegal and arbitrary; Jurisdiction; Quash notice; Stay Application; Demand for defaulter
• Section: 226; 227

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18413 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN: SRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O LATE T.LAKSHMAN AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT FLAT 403 1ST FLOOR, GAYATHRI, 1ST CROSS BEHIND WOODLANDS SHOES SHOWROOM INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU 560 038 …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER JCIT (OSD)- CENT CIR 1(3) BLR CR BUILDING NO.1 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT QUEEN ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001 2. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER CR BUILDING NO 1 INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT QUEEN ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE OF DEMAND FOR DEFAULTER ALL 2 DTD 03.09.2021 VIDE ANNX-A TO A5 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITY AS BEING ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL AND HENCE NULL AND VOID. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER In this petition the petitioner seeks the impugned notices at Annexures-A to A5 all dated 03.09.2021, impugned notices at Annexures-B to B15 all dated 22.09.2021, impugned order at Annexures-C to C8 all dated 20.09.2021 and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the Memorandum of Petition and referring to the documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notices and the impugned order are without jurisdiction or authority of law and the same are illegal and arbitrary in view of the circulars dated 02.02.1993, 06.03.1989 and 16.01.1991 passed by the Central Board of 3 Direct Taxes, which have been referred to and affirmed by this Court as well as the Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Madras. In this context, it is submitted that prior to the issuance of the impugned notices, the petitioner submitted stay applications on 31.08.2021 vide Annexures-F to F6 and consequently, the subsequent impugned notices and impugned orders are illegal and arbitrary and the same deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the stay applications are still pending adjudication, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that neither the aforesaid circulars relied upon by the petitioner nor the decisions of this Court or other High Courts are applicable to the facts of the instant case and as such, there is no merit in this Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Though several contentions have been urged by both sides in support of their respective claims, in the 4 light of the undisputed fact that stay applications were already filed by the petitioner on 31.08.2021 prior to issuance of the impugned notice and impugned orders and the same is still pending adjudication before respondent No.1 - Assessing Officer, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, I am of the view that the respondents could not have initiated any further proceedings during the pendency of the aforesaid stay applications and consequently, the impugned notices and impugned orders deserve to be quashed and respondent No.1 - Assessing Officer be directed to dispose of the stay applications filed by the petitioner in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned notices at Annexures-A to A5 all dated 03.09.2021, impugned notices at Annexures-B to B15 all dated 22.09.2021, impugned orders at Annexures-C to C8 all dated 20.09.2021 are hereby quashed. 5 (iii) Respondent No.1 - Assessing Officer is directed to consider and dispose of the stay applications, all dated 31.08.2021, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) All rival contentions between the parties including the contentions regarding applicability of the circulars and decisions relied upon by the petitioner are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents to take further steps in accordance with law after disposal of the aforesaid stay applications by respondent No.1 - Assessing Officer. SD/- JUDGE Bmc "